1 2026:CGHC:8328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3720 of 2022 1 - Jaipal Nirala S/o Jhangloo Ram Nirala, Aged About 36 Years, Working as Labour Sub Inspector, Officer of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Labour Commissioner Department of Labour Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Labour Commissioner Department of Labour, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Labour Commissioner Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sa chin Singh Rajput RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.23 12:36:16 +0530 2 Order on Board 16/02/2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief/s : “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly set aside the impugned order dated 6/5/2022 (Annexure P/1) with respect to the demotion of the petitioner and further the petitioner may kindly be allowed to work on the post of Labour Sub-Inspector with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief of relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade 2 and was considered for promotion to the post of Labour Sub Inspector. For this purpose, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred as ‘DPC’) was convened on 31.01.2022 (Annexure R/2). The petitioner’s name was considered in the meeting of the DPC and he was found fit for the promotion on the post of Labour Sub Inspector and thus recommendation was made by the DPC. The respondents on accepting the recommendations of the DPC promoted the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure P/2). Suddenly, without giving an opportunity of hearing or show 3 cause notice, the promotion granted to the petitioner was cancelled by impugned order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) and his case was kept in the sealed envelop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed considering the facts that petitioner faced an enquiry on a complaint made by one female collogue under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and he was found guilty in the enquiry dated 04.01.2019 (Annexure P/5). He submits that said order was subject to challenge by one of the person found guilty in the same order namely Shoeb Qazi in WPS No. 2151/2019. This Court vide its order dated 29.04.2025, had set-aside the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of. Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Though the petitioner was not a party to that writ petition, but effect of order of this Court is that the entire order by which the petitioner was found guilty has been set-aside. Liberty was given in favour of the respondent to proceed ahead enquiring the matter in accordance with law. Thus the impugned order cannot sustain in the judicial scrutiny of this Court. Apart from this as it has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing, is liable to be set-aside. To buttress his submissions he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 690 in 4 paragraphs 14 & 19 and in another judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 1525/2023 (Jeevan Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) dated 04.11.2025 in paragraphs No.9. Thus, he submits that impugned order may be set-aside. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was found guilty by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under ‘the Act’. Though the same was subjected to challenge by the other delinquent employee, this Court has quashed the order of finding the petitioner guilty, but the same was not challenged by the petitioner. By the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2151/2019 it was restricted to the petitioner therein. When this fact came to the knowledge of the respondents, a review DPC was convened and the case of the petitioner was kept in a sealed envelop, and thus, the impugned order was passed and therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. However, he does not dispute that before passing of the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. 5. This Court at this stage is not going to ascertain whether the quashment of the order passed by the Internal Complaints Committee in WPS No. 2151/2019 would apply in pari materia of force with the case of the petitioner, but in fact, from the record it appears that before passing the order impugned, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Prakash Ratan Singh 5 (supra) in paragraph 9, 14, 19 has held as under : “9.The respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play, as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases. 14.Corollary principles emanating from these cases are as to what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case and that it is only where b there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard and on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. These cases have also observed, whenever an action of public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give a proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person. 19.The Division Bench of the Court does not dispute the fact of passing of the impugned order without hearing the appellant, but condones the procedural irregularity by bringing it under the "doctrine of futile exercise". b According to the Court, even if an opportunity of showing cause was afforded to the appellant, it would not have made any difference. 7. This Court in case of Jeevan Lal Verma (supra) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held in paragraph 6 9 as under : 9. From the perusal of record as also the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is a well settled principle of law that before passing any order which entails civil consequences, the person concerned must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, since the petitioner has been demoted without being given any such opportunity, the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice.” 8. In the light of above, as the impugned order appears to be passed without following the principle of natural justice, the show cause notice is hereby set-aside and quashed. 9. This writ petition is thus allowed. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ravi Mandavi